Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

We all know how weak these responses are. The pretended laughter, the pretended sorrow, the pretended lack of comprehension, the pretended exultation whilst pretending a victory has been won, the pretended ........... and so it goes on.

But we are not fooled because it is obvious to the rest of us here that real answers are not forthcoming because quite simply "He cannot".

Here is an effect of atheism: It allows me a third party perspective on theists.

As an outsider, I am invited to view theism and religious dogma as a social construct and seek explanations in terms of psychology and social science instead of "authored by God." Atheism permits me to use the tools of rationality and avoid the "answers by way of authority" the religious are prone to.

I think this is why atheism and skepticism are such good partners. If you are embedded in a culture where God belief is popular, it takes some effort to overcome the "go along to get along" recipe and this mechanism is useful in other areas as well.

The wishful thinking on offer from the theist eventually becomes repugnant and the god-of-the-gaps answers extremely unsatisfactory.

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 1,984

Originally Posted by wareyin

Apparently, he cannot.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

No certainly he cannot so as I said before:

We all know how weak these responses are. The pretended laughter, the pretended sorrow, the pretended lack of comprehension, the pretended exultation whilst pretending a victory has been won, the pretended ........... and so it goes on.

But we are not fooled because it is obvious to the rest of us here that real answers are not forthcoming because quite simply "He cannot".

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 1,984

Originally Posted by David Mo

We've all tried it a hundred times.

It's a shame because- and I'm ready for the howls of outrage as well as some gloating from TBD- that The Big Dog does actually have a point with regard to gosatheizm.
Let me explain what I mean. It is a fact that religious groups were persecuted and suppressed in Stalin-era Russia. There were several reasons for this, but I don't think it can be denied that atheism had a part to play in that. Had the communists not been atheist, there would have been no state policy of atheism.

Now, does that mean I believe that persecution of religious believers is an effect of atheism per se? No, because there is nothing inherent in atheism to lead to the suppression of religious beliefs. This kind of behaviour is much more common among the religious, who spend a lot of time and effort trying to obliterate both atheists and those of different beliefs.
It is also not a result of communism per se. China is also a communist (officially socialist, but let's not split hairs) country, yet the treatment of religions is quite different from Russia under Stalin. Roman Catholicism is illegal, but that is because the Chinese authorities dislike the fact that Catholics owe their alliegance to the Pope, and not to the Chinese state. It is not illegal because it is a religion, and in fact there is an official Chinese Christian church. The treatment of Muslims is also telling. In Xinjiang, the ethnic Uighurs are enduring some pretty brutal oppression: men cannot grow long beards, women cannot be veiled, they cannot fast during Ramadan, and any disobedience is met with beatings (I have witnessed one such) and imprisonment. They cannot get passports until they are 40, so they are also prevented from doing the haj until middle age. The Uighurs are ethnically distinct from the Han Chinese, and the reason for this oppression is political not religious. This can easliy be proven by looking at the contrast with Hui Muslims. This group is ethnically Chinese, and they endure none of the rough treatment of their Uighur co-religionists.
To return to Russia, I am of the opinion that the persecution and suppression of religion was not the result of atheism per se, nor of communism per se, but a consequence of a perfect storm of atheism, communism and an especially brutal dictator. That said, I think it impossible to deny that atheism had a role in this.
The shame of it is the TBD's approach- the refusal to answer points and questions, the mockery, the faked emotions et al- has created such a wall of antipathy that any halfway decent point he makes is tainted by the rest of his arguments. Were he not quite so confrontational, scornful and shifty, it would help his case no end.
TDB: how about it? If you really want to make some headway here, how about a change of approach? It's obviously not my place to tell you how to conduct your forum business, but it might be better all round if you at least thought about it.

It's a shame because- and I'm ready for the howls of outrage as well as some gloating from TBD- that The Big Dog does actually have a point with regard to gosatheizm.
Let me explain what I mean. It is a fact that religious groups were persecuted and suppressed in Stalin-era Russia. There were several reasons for this, but I don't think it can be denied that atheism had a part to play in that. Had the communists not been atheist, there would have been no state policy of atheism.

Now, does that mean I believe that persecution of religious believers is an effect of atheism per se? No, because there is nothing inherent in atheism to lead to the suppression of religious beliefs. This kind of behaviour is much more common among the religious, who spend a lot of time and effort trying to obliterate both atheists and those of different beliefs.
It is also not a result of communism per se. China is also a communist (officially socialist, but let's not split hairs) country, yet the treatment of religions is quite different from Russia under Stalin. Roman Catholicism is illegal, but that is because the Chinese authorities dislike the fact that Catholics owe their alliegance to the Pope, and not to the Chinese state. It is not illegal because it is a religion, and in fact there is an official Chinese Christian church. The treatment of Muslims is also telling. In Xinjiang, the ethnic Uighurs are enduring some pretty brutal oppression: men cannot grow long beards, women cannot be veiled, they cannot fast during Ramadan, and any disobedience is met with beatings (I have witnessed one such) and imprisonment. They cannot get passports until they are 40, so they are also prevented from doing the haj until middle age. The Uighurs are ethnically distinct from the Han Chinese, and the reason for this oppression is political not religious. This can easliy be proven by looking at the contrast with Hui Muslims. This group is ethnically Chinese, and they endure none of the rough treatment of their Uighur co-religionists.
To return to Russia, I am of the opinion that the persecution and suppression of religion was not the result of atheism per se, nor of communism per se, but a consequence of a perfect storm of atheism, communism and an especially brutal dictator. That said, I think it impossible to deny that atheism had a role in this.
The shame of it is the TBD's approach- the refusal to answer points and questions, the mockery, the faked emotions et al- has created such a wall of antipathy that any halfway decent point he makes is tainted by the rest of his arguments. Were he not quite so confrontational, scornful and shifty, it would help his case no end.
TDB: how about it? If you really want to make some headway here, how about a change of approach? It's obviously not my place to tell you how to conduct your forum business, but it might be better all round if you at least thought about it.

Respectfully.... no. You did not make the case. There is no half-way decent point, either. What is being backdoored here is the idea that atheism equates to lack of moral behavior, which then backdoors that the only moral truths possible are ones from divine sources. All unsupported, all slanderous.

__________________Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

It's a shame because- and I'm ready for the howls of outrage as well as some gloating from TBD- that The Big Dog does actually have a point with regard to gosatheizm.
Let me explain what I mean. It is a fact that religious groups were persecuted and suppressed in Stalin-era Russia. There were several reasons for this, but I don't think it can be denied that atheism had a part to play in that. Had the communists not been atheist, there would have been no state policy of atheism.

Marxism is a materialist and scientificist ideology. This entails atheism as a corollary of its materialism. Therefore, Marxism is atheist in the same way that it is anti-idealist or anti-metaphysics. Atheism is not the main issue of Marxism. Class struggle, state socialism or the revolution against bourgeoisie are dominant points. Therefore, before Stalin, the soviet Marxism followed Engels that thought that religion would disappear in the socialist society without special attention. What needed atheism to overcome theism or any other idelalism were secularist measures, like the separation between church and state, collectivization of the private property and materialist propaganda ("Diamat").

Only one of these has any link to atheism: the propaganda and progressive conversion of Dialectical Materialism (“Diamat”) in an official dogma. It is obvious that Diamat was not the responsible of the repression before, during and after Stalin. The repression (including Gulag) was the outcome of the evolution of the Soviet State towards totalitarianism. This repression was directed against opponents and dissidents without regard to whether they were atheists or theists. The same laws were directed against Buddhist temples and kulaks, Trotskyists and priests, left-wingers and right-wingers, etc. All were for the state “counter-revolutionary agents”.

Hence, that the relation between Sate and churches is very different in different Marxist ‒or alleged Marxist‒ states. Stalin made almost impossible the existence of the churches, China has a more relative tolerance toward some of them, North Korea has a national religion and Cuba never banned the Catholic religion that has an important cult.

To say that theism was the responsible of the Soviet Gulag is nonsensical. An absurd that the Big Dog repeats without any justification while he refuses to answer to the requests for explanation over and over. It is his slogan and he goes not further.

Pretend?! The man is clearly in anguish. We need a couch subforum for fainters.

__________________I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-

Just watched a movie "A Matter of Faith- 2014" about a Christian girl studying biology and wrestling with her faith, when confronted with the fact of evolution. A debate is arranged between the girl's Christian father and the girl's biology professor.

Movie started out OK and I thought started out with promise, but that all changed at the end, when a Christian biology professor entered the debate and floored the other guy, with a sweeping argument where the origin of the universe, the beginning of life and evolution, were all rolled into one.

It was such a blatantly dishonest example of telling lies for Jesus and I wonder what the film makers are trying to achieve and who are they targeting. I wonder if the film makers are not aware of how poor the argument they are making is, or are they just confident that the audience is so intellectually wanting that it will fly. I think the latter.

I have never seen an argument put forward by atheists that matches this kind of thing so this may be an effect of atheism - a more honest attempt to present an argument.

Just watched a movie "A Matter of Faith- 2014" about a Christian girl studying biology and wrestling with her faith, when confronted with the fact of evolution. A debate is arranged between the girl's Christian father and the girl's biology professor.

Movie started out OK and I thought started out with promise, but that all changed at the end, when a Christian biology professor entered the debate and floored the other guy, with a sweeping argument where the origin of the universe, the beginning of life and evolution, were all rolled into one.

It was such a blatantly dishonest example of telling lies for Jesus and I wonder what the film makers are trying to achieve and who are they targeting. I wonder if the film makers are not aware of how poor the argument they are making is, or are they just confident that the audience is so intellectually wanting that it will fly. I think the latter.

I have never seen an argument put forward by atheists that matches this kind of thing so this may be an effect of atheism - a more honest attempt to present an argument.

Huh, still sweeping with that broad brush, unfortunately I think that your argument just might fly in here.

__________________Rule 13: No "But Hillary..." posing as political discussion"

Stalin is unique among world communist leaders in at least one respect: he studied theology for five years at the Tiflis Spiritual Seminary, the training college for priests in the Russian Orthodox Church. He did so during a deeply formative time of his life, from the age of 15 to the verge of his 20th birthday (1894-1899). One of the best students, he was known for his intellect and phenomenal memory. And he was notably devout, attending all worship services and even leading the choir. Yet, despite the importance of this theological study in forming Stalin’s mind and life, few if any take the time to analyse what Stalin studied and how he did so. Thus, this chapter investigates closely Stalin’s studies, especially the theological content of his study with an eye on the themes that would emerge later in his thought.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I've been hearing about this off and on for the last decade or so. For most the population the Soviet economy was better than the current corrupt oligarchy. The fall of Communism never really brought Russia the middle-class economic surge that's currently winding down in the USA. Between those economic rose tinted glasses and the cult of personality Stalin built up during his life, there really is a movement to make Stalin a religious figure.

In a lot of ways, it's the natural consequence of supplanting one religious ideology (Russian Orthodoxy) with another religious ideology (Communism). For the masses, Communism worked better. What's more, a lot of the people Stalin rounded up and slaughtered, such as Romani and gays, are the same groups demonized and attacked by the current regime. The difference between Putin's Russia and Stalin's USSR is growing increasingly fuzzy. The iconography of Stalin is something of a cargo-cult mentality to be sure but isn't that how most religion really starts anyway?

I see then you are recognizing such a parallel, refusing to identify films made by theists and patting yourself on the back about sweeping broadly.

Oh lordy. I envy you the rock you're living under that you missed cinematic abortions like Kirk Cameron's fellation of consumerism, Saving Christmas and Sorbo's blundering stereotype festival and live action Chick Tract God's Not Dead

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

The Soviets had a comprehensive film propaganda campaign as part of gosatheizm.

For a recent example in English, please be appalled by the craptacular The Invention of Lying

Amusingly, my autocorrect lists the actual word as an "unidenitfied word" but suggests your misspelling should be replaced with "go atheism." I somehow doubt you were trying to create a pep rally cheer for atheism!

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Oh I see! You are asking me to name some movies made by theists, because you are unaware of the existence of such movies? Do you honestly expect us to believe this?

Anyway assuming you have been living under a rock until now here is a site that lists 10 of the aforementioned type of movies:

I read that Kirk and Ray Comfort (Banana Man), have some sort of partnership. Can you imagine the intellectual depth of the discussions they must get into?

We don't need to wonder. There's video.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Literally so simple; a blatantly dishonest argument supported by a single example of a terrible movie used to support the claim that an effect of atheism results in a "more honest attempt to present an argument." I wonder if people are not aware of how poor the argument they are making is, or are they just confident that the audience is so intellectually wanting that it will fly.

I've said it so many times that it is just fact at this point: this thread is an utter catastrophe for atheists.

Oh brother.

__________________Rule 13: No "But Hillary..." posing as political discussion"